There are couples of questions around asking for difference / explanation on identifying and non-identifying relationship in relationship database.
My question is, can you think of a simpler term for these jargons? I understand that technical terms have to be specific and unambiguous though. But having an 'alternative name' might help students relate more easily to the concept behind.
We actually want to use a more layman term in our own database modeling tool, so that first-time users without much computer science background could learn faster.
cheers!
I often see child table or dependent table used as a lay term. You could use either of those terms for a table with an identifying relationship
Then say a referencing table is a table with a non-identifying relationship.
For example, PhoneNumbers is a child of Users, because a phone number has an identifying relationship with its user (i.e. the primary key of PhoneNumbers includes a foreign key to the primary key of Users).
Whereas the Users table has a state column that is a foreign key to the States table, making it a non-identifying relationship. So you could say Users references States, but is not a child of it per se.
I think belongs to would be a good name for the identifying relationship.
A "weak entity type" does not have its own key, just a "partial key", so each entity instance of this weak entity type has to belong to some other entity instance so it can be identified, and this is an "identifying relationship". For example, a landlord could have a database with apartments and rooms. A room can be called kitchen or bathroom, and while that name is unique within an apartment, there will be many rooms in the database with the name kitchen, so it is just a partial key. To uniquely identify a room in the database, you need to say that it is the kitchen in this particular apartment. In other words, the rooms belong to apartments.
I'm going to recommend the term "weak entity" from ER modeling.
Some modelers conceptualize the subject matter as being made up of entities and relationships among entities. This gives rise to Entity-Relationship Modeling (ER Modeling). An attribute can be tied to an entity or a relationship, and values stored in the database are instances of attributes.
If you do ER modeling, there is a kind of entity called a "weak entity". Part of the identity of a weak entity is the identity of a stronger entity, to which the weak one belongs.
An example might be an order in an order processing system. Orders are made up of line items, and each line item contains a product-id, a unit-price, and a quantity. But line items don't have an identifying number across all orders. Instead, a line item is identified by {item number, order number}. In other words, a line item can't exist unless it's part of exactly one order. Item number 1 is the first item in whatever order it belongs to, but you need both numbers to identify an item.
It's easy to turn an ER model into a relational model. It's also easy for people who are experts in the data but know nothing about databases to get used to an ER model of the data they understand.
There are other modelers who argue vehemently against the need for ER modeling. I'm not one of them.
Nothing, absolutely nothing in the kind of modeling where one encounters things such as "relationships" (ER, I presume) is "technical", "precise" or "unambiguous". Nor can it be.
A) ER modeling is always and by necessity informal, because it can never be sufficient to capture/express the entire definition of a database.
B) There are so many different ER dialects out there that it is just impossible for all of them to use exactly the same terms with exactly the same meaning. Recently, I even discovered that some UK university that teaches ER modeling, uses the term "entity subtype" for the very same thing that I always used to name "entity supertype", and vice-versa !
One could use connection.
You have Connection between two tables, where the IDs are the same.
That type of thing.
how about
Association
Link
Correlation
Related
Problem description
I am currently working on a project which requires a relational database for storage.
After thinking about the data and its relations for a while I ran into a quite repetitive problem:
I encountered a common data schema for entity A which contains some fields e.g. name, description, value. This entity is connected with entity B in multiple n-1 relations. So entity B has n entities A in relation rel1 and n entities A in relation rel2.
Now I am trying to break down this datamodel into a schema for a relational database (e.g. Postgres, MySQL).
After some research, I have not really found "the best" solution for this particular problem.
Some similar questions I have found so far:
Stackoverflow
DBA Stackexchange
My ideas
So I have thought about possible solutions which I am going to present here:
1. Duplicate table
The relationship from entity B to entity A has a certain meaning to it. So it is possible to create multiple tables (1 per relationship). This would solve all immediate problems but essentially duplicate the tables which means that changes now have to be reflected to multiple tables (e.g. a new column).
2. Introduce a type column
Instead of multiple relationships, I could just say "Entity B is connected with n entity A". Additionally, I would add a type column that then tells me to which relation entity A belongs. I am not exactly sure how this is represented with common ORMs like Spring-Hibernate and if this introduces additional problems that I am currently unaware of.
3. Abstract the common attributes of entity A
Another option is to create a ADetails entity, which bundles all attributes of entity A.
Then I would create two entities that represent each relationship and which are connected to the ADetails entity in a 1-to-1 relationship. This would solve the interpretation problem of the foreign key but might be too much overhead.
My Question
In the context of a medium-large-sized project, are any of these solutions viable?
Are there certain Cons that rule out one particular approach?
Are there other (better) options I haven't thought about?
I appreciate any help on this matter.
Edit 1 - PPR (Person-Party-Role)
Thanks for the suggestion from AntC. PPR Description
I think the described situation matches my problem.
Let's break it down:
Entity B is an event. There exists only one event for the given participants to make this easier. So the relationship from event to participant is 1-n.
Entity A can be described as Groups, People, Organization but given my situation they all have the same attributes. Hence, splitting them up into separate tables felt like the wrong idea.
To explain the situation with the class diagram:
An Event (Entity B) has a collection of n Groups (Entity A), n People (Entity A) and n Organizations (Entity A).
If I understand correctly the suggestion is the following:
In my case the relationship between Event and Participant is 1-n
The RefRoles table represents the ParticipantType column that descibes to which relationship the Participant belongs (is it a customer or part of the service for the event for example)
Because all my Groups, People and Organizations have the same attributes the only table required at this point is the Participant table
If there are individual attributes in the future I would introduce a new table (e.g. People) that references the Participant in a 1-1 relationship.
If there are multiple tables going to be added, the foreign key of the multiple 1-1 relationship is mutually exclusive (so there can only be one Group/Person/Organization for a participant)
Solution suggested by AntC and Christian Beikov
Splitting up the tables does make sense while keeping the common attributes in one table.
At the moment there are no individual attributes but the type column is not required anymore because the foreign keys can be used to see which relationship the entity belongs to.
I have created a small example for this:
There exist 3 types (previously type column) of people for an event: Staff, VIP, Visitor
The common attributes are mapped in a 1-1-relationship to the person table.
To make it simple: Each Person (Staff, VIP, Visitor) can only participate in one event. (Would be n-m-relationship in a more advanced example)
The database schema would be the following:
This approach is better than the type column in my opinion.
It also solves having to interprete the entity based on its type in the application later on. It is also possible to resolve a type column in an ORM (see this question) but this approach avoids the struggle if the ORM you are using does not support resolving it.
IMO since you already use dedicated terms for these objects, they probably will diverge and splitting up a table afterwards is quite some work, also on the code side, so I would suggest you map dedicated entities/tables from the beginning.
This is the description:
Draw an Entity-Relationship diagram for Poke-Hospital which provides
medical service to pokemon.
Each pokemon has an appointment with one of the nurse Joys. In
addition to recording the name, type and trainer of each pokemon, the
system needs to keep track of the multiple types of sickness being
diagnosed for the pokemon. During an appointment, the nurse will
always prescribe medicine. It is required to record the date, time and
dosage of the medicine. A pokemon may need to take more than one
medicine at a time. Each medicine is stored with its name, brand and
cost of purchase. There is no restriction on the amount of medicine to
be prescribed by any nurse.
Within an appointment, a pokemon may need to undergo procedures such
as a surgery and/or diagnosis. Each procedure requires different type
of rooms and a list of equipment. The date, time and the actual room
of the procedure need to be recorded.
A procedure may be performed by more than one nurse. A nurse is
involved in the procedure based on the training skills that she has
completed. Not all nurses are qualified to perform procedures.
Name, pager number as well as office number for each nurse most be
known. Your diagram should show the entities, relationships and their
attributes, and the cardinality of any relationships. Mark the best
primary key for each entity by underlining it.
This is my solution:
Here are my questions:
Should I use Have Appointment as associative entity?
Should I remove 2 relationships Undergo and Prescribe and connect 2
entities Procedure and Appointment Medicine directly to Have
Appointment associative entity? Will the ERD still right then?
If it's wrong, what about the same as question 2 and I turn the Have
Appointment associative entity into a relationship?
I feel really confused about the difference between using associative entity with a relationship (like in this post Enrollment with Teach and Teacher: When to use Associative entities?) and using ternary relationship (connect Teacher directly to Enrollment relationship instead of changing Enrollment to an associative entity and have the Teach relationship).
Should I use Have Appointment as associative entity?
No, I believe it should be a regular entity set. You gave it its own identity - the ID primary key - which I agree with, but that should've corresponded with a change in element type. Associative entity sets (AES) are relationships first, which means they're identified by the (keys of the) entity sets that they relate.
This is a topic that's widely confused, since AES in the entity-relationship model are different than in the network data model. The latter is intuitively more familiar to developers, since it's essentially a model based on records and pointers, but since it only supports directed binary relationships, anything more complicated - many-to-many relationships as well as ternary and higher relationships - need to be represented as AES. In this model, AES are identified by a surrogate ID, since composite keys generally aren't supported either.
The entity-relationship model supports n-ary relationships and composite keys, and so doesn't need AES nearly as frequently. One situation that can't be represented by regular entity sets and n-ary relationships is when a relationship needs to be the subject of a further relationship.
For example, let's look at the relationship between Procedure and Nurse to represent the nurses involved in a procedure.
I prefer the look-across convention for cardinality indicators - a nurse can perform 0 or more procedures, while a procedure requires 1 or more nurses. Anyway, the relationship Perform here is identified by the composite primary key (ProcedureID, NurseID).
Now, if we wanted to track the equipment used by each nurse in the performance of the procedure, we might think a simple ternary relationship would do the trick:
but that relationship would be identified by (ProcedureID, NurseID, EquipmentID), preventing us from recording nurses that assisted in the procedure without using any equipment. What we need is two separate relationships:
(ProcedureID, NurseID)
((ProcedureID, NurseID), EquipmentID)
with an FK constraint from the second to the first to prevent nurses not assisting in the procedure from handling the equipment.
Back to Have Appointment - it's not a relationship between pokemon and nurses (a pokemon can see the same nurse multiple times), it's an event that involves pokemon, nurses, procedures and medicine. It's best handled as a regular entity set with relationships to the other four. As for identity, I imagine a pokemon or nurse can only have one appointment at a time, so we could choose (PokemonID, DateTime) or (NurseID, DateTime) as a natural key. However, in practice we usually identify events by a surrogate ID since events span an interval which most DBMSs can't handle effectively as a primary key.
Should I remove 2 relationships Undergo and Prescribe and connect 2 entities Procedure and Appointment Medicine directly to Have Appointment associative entity? Will the ERD still right then?
No, I think you should add relationships between Pokemon and Have Appointment, and between Nurse and Have Appointment, after converting the AES to a regular entity set.
If it's wrong, what about the same as question 2 and I turn the Have Appointment associative entity into a relationship?
Answered above.
I'm new to databases and trying to understand why a junction or association table is needed when creating a many-to-many relationship.
Most of what I'm finding on Stackoverflow and elsewhere describe it in either highly technical relational theory terms or it's just described as 'that's the way it's done' without qualifying why.
Are there any relational database designs out there that support having a many-to-many relationship without the use of an association table? Why is it not possible to have, for example, a column on on table that holds the relationships to another and vice a versa.
For example, a Course table that holds a list of courses and a Student table that holds a bunch of student info — each course can have many students and each student can take many classes.
Why is it not possible to have a column on each row in either table (possibly in csv format) that contains the relationships to the others in a list or something similar?
In a relational database, no column holds more than a single value in each row. Therefore, you would never store data in a "CSV format" -- or any other multiple value system -- in a single column in a relational database. Making repeated columns that hold instances of the same item (Course1, Course2, Course3, etc) is also not allowed. This is the very first rule of relational database design and is referred to as First Normal Form.
There are very good reasons for the existence of these rules (it is enormously easier to verify, constrain, and query the data) but whether or not you believe in the benefits the rules are, none-the-less, part of the definition of relational databases.
I do not know the answer to your question, but I can answer a similar question: Why do we use a junction table for many-to-many relationships in databases?
First, if the student table keeps track of which courses the student is in and the course keeps track of which students are in it, then we have duplication. This can lead to problems. What if a student knows it is in a course, but the course doesn't know that it has that student. Every time you made a course change you would have to make sure to change it in both tables. Inevitably this will not happen every time and the data will become inconsistent.
Second, where would we store this information? A list is not a possible type for a field in a database. So do we put a course column in the student table? No, because that would only allow each student to take one course, a many-to-one relationship from students to courses. Do we put a student column in the courses table? No, because then we have one student in each course.
What does work is having a new table that has one student and one course per row. This tells us that a student is in a class without duplicating any data.
"Junction tables" come from ER/ORM presentations/methods/products that don't really understand the relational model.
In the relational model (and in original ER information modeling) application relationships are represented by relations/tables. Each table holds tuples of values that are in that relationship to each other, ie that are so related, ie that satisfy that relationship, ie that participate in the relationship.
A relationship is expressed independently of any particular situation as a predicate, a fill-in-the-(named-)blanks statement. Rows that fill in the named blanks to give a true statement from the predicate in a particular situation go in the table. We pick sufficient predicates (hence base tables) to describe every situation. Both many-to-1 and many-to-many application relationships get tables.
The reason why you don't see a lot of many-to-many relationships along with columns about the participants rather than about their participation in the relationship is that such tables are better split into ones about the participants and one for the relationship. Eg columns in a many-to-many table that are about participants 1. can't say anything about entities that don't participate and 2. say the same thing about an entity every time it participates. Information modeling techniques that focus on identifying independent entity types first then relationships between them tend to lead to designs with few such problems. The reason why you don't see many-to-many relationships in two tables is that that is redundant and susceptible to the error of the tables disagreeing. The problem with collection-valued columns (sequences/lists/arrays) is that you cannot generically query about their parts using usual query notation and implementation because the DBMS doesn't see the parts organized into a table.
See this recent answer or this one.
While studying for my IT exam I came across the following sentence:
"A collection of fields that store information about a certain entity, is a record. A record is a whole row of fields."
..but I have always thought that the correct term for an "object" in a database is an "entity".
So is the correct term an "entity" or a "record"? Or are they the same?
In that sentence, entity doesn't refer to anything in the database. It's using entity to refer to a conceptual object, whatever thing in the real world the database record represents. For instance, if you have an inventory database, each row stands for a product in the warehouse, and that's the entity.
An entity is defined as “something that exists as a particular and
discrete unit.” In terms of identity management, an entity is the
logical relationship between two or more records. [...] An entity is
also called a “linkage set.” There can be an unlimited number of
records in an entity or linkage set.
Source
Along these lines, an entity can be a set of records in a table or even across different tables.
I would say that an entity concept is physicalised by 1 or more tables e.g.
a product concept might be encapsulated entirely in 1 table
a person concept might be spread across several tables, for example due to normalisation - all information relating to a person might not exist in the same table.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Is it things like tables? Or would it also include things like constraints, stored procedures, packages, etc.?
I've looked around the internet, but finding elementary answers to elementary questions is sometimes a little difficult.
That's quite a general question!
Basically, all types that the database system itself offers, like NUMERIC, VARCHAR etc., or that the programming language of choice offers (int, string etc.) would be considered "atomic" data(base) types.
Anything that you - based on your program's or business' requirements - build from that, business objects and so forth, are entities.
Tables, constraints and so forth are database-internal objects needed to store and retrieve data, but those are general not considered "entities". The data stored in your tables, when retrieved and converted into an object, that then is an entity.
Marc
In the entity relationship world an entity is something that may exist independently and so there is often a one-to-one relationship between entities and database tables. However, this mapping is an implementation decision: For example, an ER diagram may contain three entities: Triangle, Square and Circle and these could potentially be modelled as a single table: Shape.
Also note that some database tables may represent relationships between entities.
This seems helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity-relationship_model
In a database an entity is a table. The table represents whatever real world concept you are trying to model (person, transaction, event).
Contraints can represents relationships between entities. These would be foreign keys. They also enforce rules like first_name can not be blank (null). A transaction must have 1 or more items. An event must have a date time.
Stored Procedures / Packages / Triggers could handle more complex relationships and/or they can handle business rules, just depends on what it's doing.
it kind of depends how you think about it and how you model your problem domain. most of the time when you hear about entities, they are database tables (one or many) mapped onto object classes. So it's not really an entity until it's been queried for and turned into a class instance.
but again, it depends on your modeling methodology, and there are multiple :-)
This thread is demomnstrating one reason why it is difficult to find "elementary answers to elementary questions". Certain words have been used by different programming paradigms to mean different things (try asking a bunch of OO programmers what is the difference between a Class and an Object sometime).
Here's my take on it.
I first came across Entity as a modelling term in SSADM (ask your dad). In that context an Entity is used to model a logical clump of datas during the requirements gathering / analysis phase. The relationships between entities were modelled using the Entity Relationship diagrams, and the profile of an Enity was modelled using Entity Life Histories. ELH diagrams were very useful in COBOL systems but utterly horrible in relational databases. ERDs on the other hand continue to be useful to this day.
During the design and implementation phases the Entities get resolved into database tables, objects or records in a COBOL input file. In the course of that process a logical entity may get split across multiple tables, or several entities may get squidged into a single table, or there may be a one-to-one mapping. Sometimes an entity is resolved away entirely or lingers on as a view or a stored procedure.
My answer is obviously a little late, but here it is as defined in a database certification text book:
Entity: A uniquely identifiable element about which data is stored in a database.
and to clear up entity and table confusion,
Entity is not a table. Tables can be called "tables" or "relations" the words are synonymous.
We'd need to know some context. One thing people sometimes do when analysing data in prepartion for designing a database is to create an Entity Realtionship Diagram, where you are considering what data items you are managing and their relationships.
I wonder if that's the context you mean?
If so perhaps a read of this article would get you started?
Entities are "things of significance" to the users/business/enterprise/problem domain.
Update:
See this article in my blog in which I try to cover the subject in more detail:
What is entity-relationship model?
An entity is a term from the entity-relationship model.
A relational model (your database schema) is one of the ways to implement the ER model.
Relational tables represent relations between simple types like integers and strings, which, in their turn, can represent everything: entities, attributes, relationships.
You cannot tell what is it only from the relational structure, you need to see the ER model.
For table persons,
id name surname
1 John Smith
id, name and surname are entities in the real world and may or may not represent entities in the underlying ER model.
The fact of a record exists in the table means that these entities are in the following relation: "person 1 has name John and has surname Smith".
In the example above, the entity is defined by id (from the model's point of view).
If a person changes his name from John to Jack, the person remains the same (again, from the model's point of view), but gets related to another name.
In example above name and surname can be treated as attribute (as opposed to entity), but again, you need to see the ER model which this schema implements to tell what is it.
In some ER-to-relational model mappings, an entity should be defined in a table referenceable with a FOREIGN KEY to be considered an entity (which should constrain its domain).
However, this constraint can exist but not be represented in a database (due to technological limitations or something else).
Like, we cannot keep a list of all possible names, but the name of ##$^# is most probably a non-name, hence, it does not belong to the domain of names.
Therefore, an attribute is an entity which can participate in a relationship but cannot be contained in a domain-defining table.
For instance, the table prices:
good_id price
defines relationships between the set of goods (which is defined by the table goods) and the set of real numbers (which cannot be contained in a table since it's not even countable).
Still each price (like $2.00) is a real-world entity just as well.